Pangloss

I didn't say that it did. I respect your opinion on it but I fail to see how this justifies an overall condemnation of the major Republican and/or conservative movements of the last half century, which seems to be yours, Bascule's and The Bear Key's point. Bad people in charge of good ideas is an equally plausible explanation (at least with regard to the efforts that we agree that they failed on). First of all, the Republican Party has not "wrought" attacks on abortion clinics. It has condemned them, and not supported or elevated them in any way that I'm aware of. Second, none of the conservative talk radio hosts that I'm aware of advocate violence either. (So that's two tiers of alleged leadership down.) Third, no major religious organizations advocate violence either. (That's three tiers. How far down do we have to go, here?) Fourth, and perhaps most important, violent actions are not an indication of ideological fault. That's right, I just said that just because someone commits a violent act doesn't mean that the underlying belief they held, the one that incongruously prompted them to commit violence, was wrong. And you don't believe that either. You wouldn't tell me that there shouldn't be any gay marriage in this country because a gay marriage proponent attacked a gay marriage opponent. No, you'd condemn his action and cast him as someone outside of the mainstream movement. So how do you justify using the bombing of abortion clinics, actions clearly taken by individuals who were not part of the mainstream conservative movement, as evidence for condemning the entire conservative movement?

Ok. (shrug) You say tomato, I say tomato. You guys asked earlier for examples of the left being as over-the-top as the right. - Anti-war protests becoming riots - Anti-corporation/globalization protests becoming riots - Attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter (accusations of incest, etc, in the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and similar high-profile liberal sites) - Air America airing extreme retributive/violence-suggesting callers is no different from Rush Limbaugh doing the same - The Weathermen/Weather Underground - Environmental activists who engage in violent activity - Animal Rights activists who engage in violent activity - Comparisons of Bush to Adolf Hitler, etc, quite common during the Bush administration I'm not suggesting that everyone on the left supports these things, but the same holds true for the right (I know none of you were suggesting that every conservative advocates violence, and I'm not suggesting that that's true of the left either). I think this is sufficient to repeat my point that the far left can be just as whacky and violent as the far right when it wants to be. Yes, absolutely.

No.

So, you are also in support of taking medicare away from the elderly, and letting them bankrupt themselves trying to care for their health before dying a sad, miserable, painful death? And clubbing baby seals. It's important. They won't let us back into the right-wing club house without at least three baby seal skins per week.

Saying I shouldn't support the GOP because of WW2-era McCarthyism is an example of demonizing. Saying that I shouldn't support the conservative movement because some conservatives are radical in their beliefs is an example of demonizing. And this thread is all about lynching, in my opinion. You feel differently, more power to you. I don't need to label your opinion "incredible bias" in order to express my own. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedRegarding the previous three posts above, I'll give it some thought, but even if what you say is true -- so what? Like I said, you gonna get a rope or just stand there and complain? Yeah okay, some people on the right are a bunch of vicious, conniving sons of whores. What else is new? Yeah okay, there's more than one reason why the center bailed to Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008. Wanna keep 'em?

I'm not sure that making an informed choice about medical care is really about medical knowledge. I'm not an expert on cars, houses, or airplanes, but I think I can make an informed choice in buying one. I know it's not the same thing -- the standard is higher, no doubt.

Nothing personal, TAR. What often happens, and all science-related forums deal with this, is that people learn a few things about a subject, then decide that they know what's really happening. We don't mind straightening out misconceptions, but when your idea is challenged, if you react by rejecting critical information you've overlooked, we pretty much lose interest. We're not here to help you challenge science with unsupported claims. Our interest is in the dissemination and education of what's actually been demonstrated and supported. But if you're looking for a little support, by all means, I wish you the best of luck! Thinking about new ideas and looking at problems in a different way is a hallmark of science. Just remember what Isaac Newton said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." First give every bit of thought to ALL the work accomplished by those who came before you. Then consider the possibility that you might be able to see a little farther.

Yes, partisanship and ugly, indecent behavior is equal on both sides. Absolutely. Sure, there's some nasty stuff in there, but it seems like you've changed the subject, or at least this is not what I thought we were discussing. And it should be pointed out that you've dipped all the way back into the 1950s for travesties committed by conservatives, but you blew by the liberal movement's own errors in ideology and common sense over the same time frame. They may not be as serious, but they do exist. Your statement about what "no one" is against may be mostly true today, but when applied to the liberal movement over the latter half of the 20th century of American history, as you did with conservatives, it just isn't the case. Maybe conservative offenses were worse, but just as liberal mainstream opinion has changed over time, so has conservative mainstream opinion. Most conservatives no longer see the sexes as unequal, for example, just as most liberals no longer see socialism as a good idea. But this is beside the point because this is a different argument from the one I was responding to. I was challenging your opinion that conservatives are more vicious than liberals, but what you're talking about now is a larger statement about whether conservatives are good or evil. No offense, but I won't argue that point with you -- I won't defend conservatives -- because I consider the argument to be moot. I'd rather just point out that demonizing either side is futile and misguided, as I'm about to do through an obvious example. This country has changed "hands" between conservatives and liberals numerous times in recent decades, and yet spending gets worse. Therefore, logically, it follows that wasteful spending is a problem in this country because BOTH parties participate in it -- neither side has an incentive to solve the problem because partisans exist who are willing to excuse one side or the other. It's just a question of which end of the spectrum won this year's election, and which end of the spectrum has the more talented crop of public demagogues haranguing away at the microphone. So like I said, if you want to get the conservatives, by all means get a rope. I'm right behind you with the torches and pitchforks. Why stop with McCarthyism? Easily the most heinous acts in modern American history were those committed by conservative opponents of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. (Or did you forget about them because they were... drum roll please... Democrats? Oops!) But when all the rhetoric is complete, we might remember that the two sides have been demonizing each other for three or four administrations now. How's that working out so far?

I'm recommending this thread be moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations. The science sections are intended for questions, inquiries, clarifications and statements of fact, not objections to and challenging of established science. That's what we have P&S for.

Threads merged.

Absolutely -- well said. Hits the nail squarely on the head.

What about the emotions behind predisposition and ideological preference? I guess you're right, they're not the same either.

What I think is that because of their majority bipartisanship was never required, it was not the reason GOP cooperation was sought, and its failure is not the reason why the current initiatives have stalled. iNow has it right, though I disagree with his conclusion. When the right came to power it was with the support of centrists and moderates. The reason the right failed to maintain control is that it discarded the moderates in order to react poorly to Iraq and tackle social-conservative causes. The center bailed to the Democratic party, which is now desperately trying to repeat that error. That's okay. Centrists and moderates are prepared to deliver the same lesson to the left. We're a pragmatic lot.

What a productive and insightful thread. Somebody grab a rope, I'll get some torches and sheets.

Er, if you say so.

That could be, but thankfully I think most observers agree that it stops well short of the communications nightmare that was Bill Clinton's first year in office.

Indeed, and they're definitely back. It's very unnerving to visit conservative Obama-hater forums these days. There's another one of Obama's face replacing the face on a jar of Kool-Aid that I find particularly disturbing.

Actually treatment costs drop all the time. Look what happens when a drug company looses its patent and generics appear, or when low-cost MRI centers open up, or when alternative treatments are developed. I agree with your other point that you're always going to have a problem with cutting-edge treatments that are more expensive than older treatments that benefit from mass production or other efficiency strategies. But if the overall program is fiscally sound it should be possible to spread out those costs effectively. (See my next point.) Maybe. But I still think that if health insurance cannot work, if the concept itself is actually flawed, then it's probably also true that no insurance of any kind can ever work either. How can I have a homeowners policy when the people insuring my house have a vested interest in not paying me when my house is destroyed? How can I have auto insurance when the people insuring my car have a vested interest in not paying me when my car is damaged? I still have not seen the case definitively made that health insurance cannot be be both profitable and efficient just because they make more money when they cut costs (which is true of any insurance). ------------ The thing I keep wondering about this is -- doesn't Actuarial Science "prove" that this stuff works? Or is this one of those "soft" sciences like economics where you have people winning Nobels based on unprovable theories? I've been asking that question since Hurricane Andrew destroyed the Florida insurance industry, begging the question of whether the insurance companies followed their actuarial tables correctly or if the science itself was flawed, and I've never heard a really good answer.

There was no shortage of over-the-top presidential caricatures during the Bush administration.

Nice chart -- thanks for passing that along.

I wish I knew. I have a conservative friend who used to regularly put forth the notion that there should be no Secret Service detail and the president should be more vulnerable to attack because the concept of democracy requires a realistic chance to overthrow the government if desired. He never quite seemed to understand my response that individual assailants don't often represent the will of the people. Fortunately he's a religious pacifist and doesn't own a gun. (Yeah, I know. Go figure.)

Yup, he's a pretty cool character. He believes in the process and sees great value in communicating and not dwelling on emotions like rage. I wouldn't say he's a better person, I'd just say he's got his eye on the ball, and he recognizes the lack of value in demonization. Not that I really think there's anything wrong with getting a little upset about politics. It can be a good motivator. And he's quite right when he points out that much of the Republican outrage is misplaced and inaccurate, as has been pointed out by folks here.

Interesting. Obama doesn't seem outraged to me when I see him in these town hall meetings. I don't see any rage in the face of Arlen Specter, in the political race of his life at age 79, standing in front of raving ditto-heads who can't even talk without spitting. These men seem to genuinely love the process. So I guess I would have to answer the question "yes", but as I indicated at the beginning of this thread, I'm not sure I see what purpose it serves. I didn't understand it when my conservative friends were upset over the behavior of Democrats during the Bush administration either. But hey, good luck with that.

Yup. And Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer. Well as I said above, I agree that that's bad.

You couldn't resist making an invalid, partisan comparison? You should try harder. The people on the left would object even if the war had zero cost. The people on the right would not object if government health care had zero cost. So which ones are the "'tards", again? (Isn't it funny how the word "retarded" is politically incorrect except when applied to conservatives? I know that's not your graphic, though.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok.